Evidence of meeting #3 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
It is on the top of page 144, “Transfer from Correctional Service--For the assessment, management and remediation of federal contaminated sites”.
10:25 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
There were a number of government departments that were funded for the contaminated sites action plan program, and as programs moved during the year, some contamination and remediation advanced more quickly than others, so Corrections was funded for the same purpose, to remediate contaminated sites--
10:25 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
--of their own, as was--
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
10:25 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
So they were able, through the supplementary estimates process, to transfer it.
For supplementary estimates (C), it should be known that the cut-off is really October, because if you don't make (B), which is early in the year, that's October 1.
10:25 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
So it's what's known about halfway through the year.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
It's not your fault, but I'm just saying that from page 76 to page 81, line after line are of transfers between departments. From a political point of view, we're responsible for spending. I'm not sure whether there's a good sense of whether we should be transferring this money or not. Based on my reading—not for this department, to be honest with you, but for other departments—it doesn't look like there's any relationship between why we're transferring from one program to another. I just wanted to make that point.
Can you explain what's meant by “$1 item” on page 86?
10:25 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
Certainly. The more technical, longer response is on page 83. When you're transferring between budgets within your voted allotments, it doesn't pick up in the supply bill unless there's a monetary amount. The $1 amount is a technical way of ensuring that the transfer actually goes into the supply bill. That's the short answer of what's explained on page 83.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Yes, I tried to read that and tried to understand it.
It is allocated, but no money is allocated to it at the time. To make it actually move, from an accounting perspective, you have to give it an evaluation of a buck.
10:25 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
Exactly.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay. Thank you very much.
Before my time runs out, there's one item here, number C60, on page 140, which says here, under "Operating expenditures", “To authorize the transfer of $250,000 from Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Vote 30” to us. The other transfers all add up: what's said in one column adds to the other column. This one says $250,000, but in the actual column it shows $111,000 and some odd change. Is there a reason why that doesn't show $250,000?
10:25 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
Yes. If we go to page 144 of the blue book, you have the line-by-line details of the transactions that make up the $111,000. The summary table on page 140 shows just the net impact of the change of the transfers of that vote. Each of the line-by-line details is outlined on page 144.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Right. So it adds up to $111,000, but what about the $250,000?
10:25 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
The $250,000 is included in there. It's the $250,000 for the Correctional Services transfer—
10:30 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
—less $20,000 for the internal reallocation of resources for the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures—
10:30 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
—so it's the net of those four items, and you see the internal transfer of $100,000. All of those add up together to form the $111,000.
10:30 a.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry
Yes.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here. It's good to be back and have you here, particularly you, Mr. Dicerni, and Ms. Gillis.
I go by the maxim that not all wisdom is necessarily new wisdom. During the period of time that this committee often operated on a basis of consensus, one area in which there was no consensus was on the question of telecommunications. A blue ribbon panel back in 2003-04 recommended that we not proceed quickly or deliberately with deregulating the telecom industry to allow new entrants at the time to bulk up, as it were, and present real, veritable competition. You recall the time, Mr. Dicerni, your minister shortcut that decision and decided to, as it were, end the period of time in which new entrants were allowed to operate on the infrastructure of the major incumbents, who in many instances had over a century advantage, including public funding.
I'm wondering, based on that, given that there is now what appears to be a relative and clear dearth of competition within the Canadian telecommunications scene, if that's what gave rise to the decision by your department, the minister's department, to suddenly change, without notice, not only the regulations pertaining to foreign investment but as well the other players who were competing for the spectrum option about a year ago. I'm referring, of course, to other companies who apparently did live by the principles that were enunciated—DAVE, Public Mobile, and others. I'm wondering if the decision now to include foreign investment—notwithstanding the fact that we've excluded the option of the potential for Canadian competition to give consumers what they're looking for—is really, at the base root, that your minister made a mistake in 2007, compounded with confusing and perhaps misleading some of the players who dutifully and in due diligence bought spectrum under conditions that they be Canadian-owned companies and are now prepared to open up foreign investment in a very strategic and very important industry on the basis of helping consumers.
I realize it's an important question, and a long question, but the context is necessary to provide where we are today. Is in fact what the minister has done with respect to Globalive a problem in search of a solution, or vice versa?
